The Advocate: A case of both sides being right — or wrong

Chris Churchil, Times Union

By Chris Churchill

Updated 8:33 am, Sunday, April 28, 2013

An animal cruelty charge against Guilderland resident Gerard Sagliocca was dropped last month for lack of evidence. The Nov. 2011 charge came after Sagliocca and his sister declined to euthanize or otherwise treat a dying cat. (Dan Little / Special to the Times Union)

An animal cruelty charge against Guilderland resident Gerard...

An animal cruelty charge against Guilderland resident Gerard Sagliocca was dropped last month for lack of evidence. The Nov. 2011 charge came after Sagliocca and his sister declined to euthanize or otherwise treat a suffering cat. (Dan Little / Special to the Times Union)

An animal cruelty charge against Guilderland resident Gerard...

An animal cruelty charge against Gerard Sagliocca, shown here at his home in Guilderland, was dropped last month for lack of evidence. The controversial Nov. 2011 charge came after Sagliocca and his sister declined to treat or euthanize a dying cat. (Dan Little / Special to the Times Union)

An animal cruelty charge against Gerard Sagliocca, shown here at...

An animal cruelty charge against Guilderland resident Gerard Sagliocca was dropped last month for lack of evidence. The Nov. 2011 charge came after Sagliocca and his sister declined to treat or euthanize a suffering cat. (Dan Little / Special to the Times Union)

What you're about to read is a story without a satisfying resolution. If you're looking for triumph, look elsewhere.

But this is a story worth telling and reading, I think, because it's evidence of our increasingly complex legal relationship with the animals that populate our lives.

I should probably get to what's newsy here: The charges against Gerard Sagliocca have been dismissed.

Sagliocca, you may remember, is the Guilderland resident who faced an animal cruelty charge after he and his sister refused to put a dying cat to sleep, even when a veterinarian, Holly Cheever, said the animal with feline immunodeficiency virus was suffering beyond the point of misery.

Cheever said euthanasia was the only humane choice. So when Sagliocca and his sister instead took the cat home, Cheever called the Guilderland police, who arrived at Sagliocca's home, received his permission to take the cat, and returned it to Cheever's clinic in Voorheesville.

Sagliocca, 62, later received a criminal summons for animal cruelty. He faced up to a year in jail.

I wrote about this case in June, and it's safe to say the column brought a strong reaction, with much of the heat aimed at Cheever.

Now, Cheever has long been a prominent veterinarian. She has a national reputation for fierce animal advocacy, having spoken out against leg-hold traps, horse-racing abuses and the mistreatment of dairy cows, to name just a few examples. There are people, then, who don't like what she stands for, and some saw the Sagliocca story as a chance to pounce with wildly hurtful claims.

One website, for example, labeled her "the Cat Killing Vet" — as if she'd enjoyed putting Charmer II down.

But more rational critics, including some animal lovers, had reasonable questions about Sagliocca's situation. What about a pet owner's right to a second opinion, or the desire to let an animal die at home?

Many of the critics, however, ignored a key detail: Cheever had only reported suspected neglect. From there, police took over.

"I was duty bound to report neglect to the authorities," Cheever told me last week. "It was law enforcement that made the decision to take the cat and bring it to me for the only humane option, which was euthanasia."

Cheever doesn't believe vets are infallible, so she strongly encourages second opinions for her clients, just as she is supportive when a caring owner decides to take a pet home for end-of-life care. What made this situation different, Cheever said, is her belief that Sagliocca had neglected an animal previously and what she describes as his angry disregard for the suffering of a cat with a failing liver, dehydration and jaundice.

Cheever notes that animal cruelty is defined under New York law as "any act, omission, or neglect, whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted" — and believes the charge against Sagliocca was therefore justified.

Sagliocca, of course, sees the situation differently. He insists Charmer II was not suffering, accuses Cheever of overstepping her authority and believes he was the victim of overzealous police action.

But he stresses one detail above all others: He didn't own Charmer II.

The cat and his disabled sister, he insists, both lived on the other side of his duplex. (A cruelty charge against the sister was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, with the condition that she never acquire another pet.)

Questions over who was the cat's true owner likely undercut the charge against Sagliocca. A spokeswoman for the District Attorney said she could not speak about a sealed case, but said the office seeks dismissals when it lacks proof needed for conviction.

Guilderland police, meanwhile, believe they acted on Cheever's complaint appropriately. "We pursued it as we would anytime we have probable cause," said Capt. Curtis Cox. "Sometimes cases are successful, sometimes they're not."

But are you seeing what I meant about the lack of a solid resolution?

I mean, both sides of this story remain unsatisfied. Sagliocca is angry at his treatment, despite the dismissal. And Cheever says she's disappointed that Sagliocca evaded punishment.

The case against Sagliocca seems unusual because animal cruelty was defined as the lack of action or treatment. But we've all seen cases — especially hoarding situations — in which the lack of proper care does qualify as abuse.

Still, it's easy to have misgivings about this case, even if you're an animal lover.

I said in my first column that I was troubled that an animal could be taken from an owner and euthanized without a court order, and I still am. I also worry that this case might keep neglectful owners from taking animals to a veterinarian for fear of abuse charges.

But this case also highlights the evolution of laws against animal cruelty.

We're certainly inconsistent. Animals in factory farms suffer abhorrent cruelty with no legal protection whatsoever. But over are the days when dogs and cats were just another piece of household property, the legal equivalent of a lawn mower.

That's a good thing -— and New York should take another step in that direction.

A bill before the Legislature would move animal crimes from Agriculture and Markets law to the Penal section of the criminal code. The move is more than symbolic, because it would help ensure police are trained to assess crimes against animals.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, a Manhattan Democrat, and Sen. Charles Fuschillo, a Long Island Republican, also would toughen existing animal cruelty laws, increase sentences for severe animal abuse and create new charges, including one for endangering the welfare of an animal.

I don't think the new law would have affected Sagliocca's case, one way or the other. It wouldn't have brought a clear-cut resolution.

But the law would give police better tools against the animal abuses that bother any thinking person — like the case against the serial dog abuser who allegedly left puppies with holes in their paws along railroad tracks in Arbor Hill, or the case against whoever tortured and shot the dog found dead this month at the University at Albany campus.